Spec mailing lists

[Alex Buckley]

https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#5.1.1

Bear in mind that a majority of JSRs are led by companies, not 
individuals, so there is usually less single-point-of-failureness that 
one might imagine. In any case, these are all issues best addressed to 
the JCP Program Management Office.

Alex

On 8/5/2014 11:40 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
> Alex,
>
> Although we discussed this in person, I was a little unclear about the
> single-point-of-failureness of it.  What happens when the ML dies?  Or
> even goes on vacation?  Are they really the sole authority?
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Alex Buckley <alex.buckley at oracle.com
> <mailto:alex.buckley at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 8/2/2014 4:51 AM, Doug Lea wrote:
>
>         This all sounds good, although it would be nice to also regularize
>         a "transition plan" for efforts (for example, the upcoming
>         memory model
>         updates; JDK8 lambdas) that result in spec updates. Probably nothing
>         special beyond saying that upon integration of specs, follow-ups
>         go here?
>
>
>     Not necessarily. The Maintenance Lead (ML) for a JSR is the official
>     contact for bugs in that JSR's spec. Just because a JSR's spec is
>     integrated into the text of the JLS or JVMS doesn't mean that the
>     ML's responsibilities diminish. In 2025, substantive feedback about
>     the JMM9 spec developed in 2015 should be sent to the ML, not
>     jls-jvms-spec-comments. To the extent that people send substantive
>     feedback to jls-jvms-spec-comments anyway, the owner of that alias
>     should not hesitate to bounce mails to the correct ML.
>
>     Alex
>
>